SRI D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he had purchased an electric chimney manufactured by OP-1 and sold by OP-3 which is a division of OP-2. That he purchased that chimney on 4/5/2009 by paying Rs.4,290/- from OP-3. It was installed in his house on the same day and is covered by warranty against all the manufacturing defect for a period of 2 years. That on 10/10/2009 at 5 p.m. the chimney exploded due to manufacturing defect. He gave a police complaint on the same day. The police have estimated loss of property due to explosion at Rs.1,25,000/-. As the result of explosion kitchen walls, stove domestic wares and other articles, roof, windows were all damaged, cost of repairs is estimated at Rs.1,25,000/-. The loss is due to defective chimney supplied by OP-3. Despite issue of notice on 9/11/2009, OPs have not compensated the damage. Hence prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him Rs.1,25,000/- towards damages jointly and severally with interest at 12% p.a.<br /> <br /> Ops No2 and 3 have filed version jointly contending that the 1st OP is the manufacturer of the chimney and the complainant if he has suffered loss can get it compensated or get the chimney replaced from OP-1 subject to warranty conditions. That they have been unnecessarily dragged to the Forum and they have nothing to do with manufacturing defective in the chimney if any. The complainant can get the chimney replaced with Op-1 and that OP-1 is responsible to provide all services like installation repairing etc., and they by denying their liability in any way to the complainant in connection with the alleged incident have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> A Representative of Op-1 appeared and filed a statement stating that when the people of Op company visited his site, the damaged chimney was taken out and kept outside by the complainant. The gas stove which was along with the chimney was not made available to their engineers for inspection inspite of repeated requests, which made the inspection process very difficult. They had also noticed that earthing was not done for the power-input machine and there was chance for the chimney to get fire from the improper usage of the gas stove and their engineer have reached a conclusion that the accident was due to faulty installation and improper usage of the machine and their was nothing wrong with the quality of the chimney and thus has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of the enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence whereas none of the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence. Later on, on 5-6-2010 Ops 2 and 3 have filed their affidavit evidence, which can not be considered on merits because it is filed after the complaint is posted for orders. The complainant has produced a copy of invoice for having purchased the chimney, copy of the complaint he had given to the police informing the incident with a copy of FIR, copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops and photos of his house. Ops have not produced any documents. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On the above contentions following points for determination arise<br /> i) Whether the complainant proves that the chimney fixed in his kitchen blasted due to manufacturing defect and that has resulted in loss of Rs.1,25,000/-?<br /> ii) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Our finding are as under:<br /> <br /> Answer on Point No:1 In the negative.<br /> Answer on Point No:2 To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> Answer on Point No:1 The fact that the complainant had purchased a chimney costing Rs.4,290/- from OP-3 which was manufactured by OP-1 on 4/5/2009 and was installed in the kitchen of the complaint is not in dispute. But the complainant’s allegations that the chimney because of the manufacturing defect exploded on 10/10/2009 is disputed by the Ops, particularly by OP-1, who has filed his objection contending that the chimney did not explode but due to faulty installation and improper usage of machine, and there was chance for the chimney to get fire for the improper usage of gas stove that incident has taken place and denied that there was any manufacturing defect. Ops No-2 and 3 denying that there was any defect in the product have stated that they are only dealers and nothing to do with the manufacturing defect and they denied their liability. With this sort of objection of the Ops the complainant has to prove with material evidence that chimney exploded due to manufacturing defect. <br /> <br /> On perusal of the complainant allegation and the affidavit evidence of the complainant, he has except alleging that chimney exploded due to manufacturing defect has not placed any material or opinion of a technician or expert to prove that explosion was due to manufacturing defect in the chimney. Even assuming for a moment that there was manufacturing defect in the chimney it would not have lead to explosion because the chimney will contain a small electric motor with power supply to run that motor. The motor and the chimney can either burnout or lead to short circuit and catch fire and that do not lead to explosion. Therefore the chimney exploded as contended by the complainant can not be believed. <br /> <br /> The counsel appearing for the Ops invited our attention to the complaint given by the complainant to the concerned police informing them about the incident. The complainant has also admitted to had given a complaint to the concerned police informing about the incident. The complainant himself has produced a copy of the complaint he had given to Nelamangala Police on 14/10/2009. The contents of the complaint throw light as how the incident, happened and it proves that the allegations of the complainant contained in the complaint are far from truth. In this complaint, the complainant has unambiguously has stated that on 10/10/2009 at about 5 p.m. due to electric short circuit there was fire in the kitchen of his house, due to that fire the chimney , gas stove, utensils , kitchen walls, tiles window, kitchen floor were burnt and the neighbours after seeing smoke coming out of his house had informed fire police station, who went to the spot immediately and extinguished fire and prevented further damage and at that time no one injured and stated at that time he was not in the house and after coming to the spot, he immediately given complaint to the police and he has suffered loss of Rs.1,25,000/-. When the attention for the counsel for the complainant was invited to this complaint given by the complainant to the police, he was not in a position to answer. Surprisingly and quite rightly the complainant could not deny having given this complaint to the police. With these facts which came out from the mouth of the complainant at the first instance soon after the incident his subsequent story as developed against the Ops fall to the ground as without any basis. Hence the complaint in our view is nothing but a false and the complainant has also failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the chimney manufactured by OP-1 and supplied by other Ops. Hence, we answer Point No:1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Complaint is dismissed.<br />